FLOCKINGHELLPUBLIC MONEY / PUBLIC ROADS / PUBLIC SAY
[ THE REPORTS DESK ]

WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED.

Every report is summarised here in full, so you can read what happened without leaving. The link to the original reporting is always on the page, clearly labelled, because a claim you cannot check is worth nothing.

Win
The jurisdiction decided against the cameras: not renewed, not pursued, or cancelled.
Partial win
Use was suspended, paused, or narrowed, but the agreement itself still stands.
Ongoing
Live dispute. A vote, a review, or a removal question is still unresolved.
Contract retained
The jurisdiction kept the cameras, whatever the public turnout looked like.
Removal verified
Reporting confirms the hardware actually came down, not just that a vote happened.
Safety review
The installation itself is under challenge on road-safety or permitting grounds, separately from any privacy or contract question.
Deployment expanded
A new contract was signed or an existing one grew. Recorded because a tracker that only counts wins is advertising.
Partial winIdaho Falls, Idaho

Idaho Falls bans Flock from training its AI on local plate data after a resident's tort claim

Published by
EastIdahoNews.com
Author
Daniel V. Ramirez
Date
Location
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Status
Partial win

Idaho Falls City Council voted unanimously on 31 July 2026 to amend its Flock Safety contract, stripping out the clause that let the company use plate images captured in the city to train and improve its machine-learning models. The change followed a months-long campaign by resident Brian McKellar, an organiser with DeFlock Idaho, who told the council on 9 July to cover or switch off the cameras by 29 July or face legal action, then filed a tort claim under the Idaho Tort Claims Act when the deadline passed. The claim seeks $100,000 and argues the contract breaches Idaho Code § 49-1432, which restricts automated licence plate reader data to law-enforcement purposes. McKellar has been explicit that the money is not the point: he told EastIdahoNews "I don't want the money. I don't. I want these cameras taken down." On that measure this is not a win. The cameras remain in operation and the council did not credit him or DeFlock when it voted. What changed is the terms: the data stays local, interagency sharing is now bounded by the statute, and the audit cycle went from twice a year to twice a month.

From the reporting

  • The amendment bars Flock from using Idaho Falls footage to train or improve machine-learning and AI models. Non-footage data may still be used for hardware fixes, such as identifying broken cameras.
  • Data sharing with other agencies is now limited to law-enforcement purposes authorised by Idaho Code § 49-1432, and out-of-state agencies must sign agreements confirming they will comply with Idaho law.
  • Internal audits of camera use moved from twice-yearly to twice-monthly.
  • Police Chief Bryce Johnson, on why the city gave up the training clause: "Idaho Falls is a very small player in this big country, and they don't need our data."
  • McKellar filed his tort claim on 29 July 2026, the deadline he had set for the council on 9 July. He also offered a claim template to other residents.
  • On 20 July the city denied McKellar's public records request for the police department's Flock contracts, arguing it "appears to be a discovery request related to potential litigation" and citing Idaho Code § 74-115(3). McKellar responded that he had filed a tort claim but had not begun a lawsuit.
  • Idaho Falls is not isolated. Attorney Tyler Cain served notices of tort claims on Caldwell and Wilder over the same statutory argument, and Twin Falls has faced a claim on the same grounds.
  • Two Flock cameras near a Lowe's in the area were knocked down. McKellar is not connected to that and DeFlock Idaho does not endorse it: asked about the cameras, he said "We don't condone that. We don't want to do that." Noted here only because the two stories ran side by side in local coverage, and the distinction is the whole point.

Read the originalThis summary is ours. The reporting is EastIdahoNews.com's, and the link below opens their page in a new tab.

Open EastIdahoNews.com report (opens in a new tab)

Inclusion is not independent verification of every claim. Dates are the publisher's publication dates. Corrections are published, not quietly patched: see sources and corrections.